A New Open-Source Game Engine Being Released

[brosis]

And for the Windows 8 store:

http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2012/10/05/open-source-and-the-windows-store/

MS is ok with GPL being there, and explicitly says so; the GPL is not ok about MS placing additional restrictions.

I don't see any problems here, can you please elaborate?

[mrugiero]

How are you planning on releasing the source? If you dump it on github it should be a lot easier for a community to build around it than if you pack it in a zip and put it on a webpage...

That would also make easier to contribute patches (I believe the authors will be interested at the very least in any fix the community can give back, if not in specific features).

[Juan Linietsky]

What exactly linders GPL or LGPL library to be used as dependency within project of random license on iOS or W8?

Chances are, you can close source everything and leave(see Unigine) or retract the copyright and switch license (see Nexuiz) or get sued over patent infridgement(see FAT fs case over Android) - only GPL3/LGPL(copyleft) and Apache 2(opensource) offer any patent protection.

This vulnerabilities taken in account, MIT is not the license you are searching for, unless these are features, not vulnerabilities.

Thanks!

The difference between us and Unigine, Nexuiz, Neoaxis, etc is that our company is a developer, not a technology licensing company.

I personally enjoy making technology, but enjoy making games even more. If I want to use contributions made by other people into a game of mine that I later want to publish on say, a console or another restricted platform, it will not work if contributions were made under GPL or LGPL. I'd have to start asking for shared copyright for all contributions, like Digia does with Qt and that's certainly a hassle.

Our take on licensing is a double edged sword, it's more freedom for us but also for others. If we were a technology company and the engine was a product, it would not make sense to open source it, or at least not under such a permissive license, but we are not. I guess that's the more logical explanation I can think of.

[IanS]

If distribution channel conflicts with GPL clause 6, the written offer valid for 3rd party allows to get source code from developer, including his modifications solely to AGPL or entire if GPL, or the library upstream.

That is all well and good, but Apple's willingness to pull GPL'd software from their app store is the troubling issue here that would undermine developer confidence in the engine if it were also under GPL or similar and that is what really matters in this situation.

My personal take on licenses tends to depend on the role the software plays. I want all core system software to be under GPL or similar, as those things should always be open. But I think library code, including things like engines, are better served by permissive licenses like MIT. Libraries and other middleware are meant to make developers' lives easier and to make all software that uses them more reliable and easier to manage and I think that should hold true regardless of the license of the end products that utilize them. On the side of end user software, the stuff that falls into the category of "apps", I think any and all licenses can work as long as they are acceptable to both the devs and their customers/users. I have no problems paying for closed source apps if I find them useful or entertaining and I wouldn't begrudge those who make closed source apps the chance to improve their products by making use of quality libraries/middleware, which goes back to why I appreciate the decision to use MIT for this project as it will benefit all game devs who use it whether they are looking to make open source games or commercial games.

[Juan Linietsky]

This looks rather promising. I've actually been looking at a number of engines lately and haven't decided on one to go with yet. I am mostly looking to do 2d games using 3d assets made in Blender, so this may turn out to be a good fit.



I second this; going with github would probably work out best.

We have a private SVN that includes all the stuff we can't release (console ports, non redistributable add ons, etc). SVN has really good per file and folder permission management, so the goal is to modularize the stuff we can't redistribute and sync that SVN with an account at github at often as we can, so in technical terms we'd be often contributing stuff to the github as everyone else, and working on release management.

[brosis]

The difference between us and Unigine, Nexuiz, Neoaxis, etc is that our company is a developer, not a technology licensing company.

I personally enjoy making technology, but enjoy making games even more. If I want to use contributions made by other people into a game of mine that I later want to publish on say, a console or another restricted platform, it will not work if contributions were made under GPL or LGPL. I'd have to start asking for shared copyright for all contributions, like Digia does with Qt and that's certainly a hassle.

Our take on licensing is a double edged sword, it's more freedom for us but also for others. If we were a technology company and the engine was a product, it would not make sense to open source it, or at least not under such a permissive license, but we are not. I guess that's the more logical explanation I can think of.

Thanks for response!

From what I understand, you want to maximize platform compatibility, no matter what for the sake of maximizing profit.

Equally, this will, as double-edged sword, affect your policy towards freedom exactly how it is happening now.

This is exactly the deal with Nexuiz was, after learning the case, the community understood the importance of "caring about hassle".

Duallicensing may still be excellent choice, if you value freedom. Using LGPL3/GPL3 license will spare you the requirement for copyright assignment as you would be protected against license withdrawal or patent issues. Ofc this will not apply for MIT-licensed case (dual or not).

Thanks for the prompt response, in this way, I guess/agree you picked the right license for your view angle.

[zester]

I'd rather see effort put into the BGE by Blender.

BGE as we know it is being deprecated last I heard. And is going to become what Ton is calling "Interaction mode".

[brosis]

That is all well and good, but Apple's willingness to pull GPL'd software from their app store is the troubling issue here that would undermine developer confidence in the engine if it were also under GPL or similar and that is what really matters in this situation.

My personal take on licenses tends to depend on the role the software plays. I want all core system software to be under GPL or similar, as those things should always be open. But I think library code, including things like engines, are better served by permissive licenses like MIT. Libraries and other middleware are meant to make developers' lives easier and to make all software that uses them more reliable and easier to manage and I think that should hold true regardless of the license of the end products that utilize them. On the side of end user software, the stuff that falls into the category of "apps", I think any and all licenses can work as long as they are acceptable to both the devs and their customers/users. I have no problems paying for closed source apps if I find them useful or entertaining and I wouldn't begrudge those who make closed source apps the chance to improve their products by making use of quality libraries/middleware, which goes back to why I appreciate the decision to use MIT for this project as it will benefit all game devs who use it whether they are looking to make open source games or commercial games.

Well, not everyone bites on FUD (and I don't mean you) easily

I understand your personal position, but in turn my position is to take no closed source software (commercial or not) for the sake of loosing personal data, being exposed to unfixable vulnerabilities, become dependent due to amount of own investment (money and/or data), become hit-by-bus along with company/developer, being exposed to restrictions that have nothing in common with common sense* and so on.

* for example this. With that, my mobile provider payment explodes as ads become platinum in price, as well as throttled on bandwidth due to absence of true flatrate. I also loose the ability to decide which content I appreciate and add to whitelist. Currently I use firefox, ditching Chrome/Google internal browser and this works. But if somehow expands, I will sell my Android tablet.

[IanS]

BGE as we know it is being deprecated last I heard. And is going to become what Ton is calling "Interaction mode".

This is correct. It was decided at least a few months back that BGE would begin transitioning into an interactive mode for Blender (which was always its strong suite anyhow). The license issues and the fact that no two people ever seemed to come to agreement over exactly what could and could not be released commercially using BGE meant it was doomed to be a lame duck from the start as far as professional game development goes. I think they are taking the right approach here, with the decision to refocus BGE and leaving the serious game development to the realm of 3rd party engines that are purpose built for that use.

[mrugiero]

My personal take on licenses tends to depend on the role the software plays. I want all core system software to be under GPL or similar, as those things should always be open. But I think library code, including things like engines, are better served by permissive licenses like MIT. Libraries and other middleware are meant to make developers' lives easier and to make all software that uses them more reliable and easier to manage and I think that should hold true regardless of the license of the end products that utilize them.

I think LGPL (at least version 2, I don't know how that license changed from version 2 to 3) would also fit into that paradigm, as you only need to publish changes to the library itself, but are allowed to use it in closed projects (as long as you either provide the object file for relinking or use dynamic linking, being the latter the most practical IMO).